The parent comment you're replying to draws the wrong conclusions from the data. Australia already obtains the majority of its power from coal, altogether fossil fuels represent 91% of Australia's consumed energy, with coal as the majority [2021-22 period, ref 1]. The subsidies provided by the state and federal government represent a -decrease- of 5% year on year. The parent comment seemingly skimmed over that point in their reference materials - they also misread the figure it's 11.1Bn, not 1.1Bn
The subsidies for coal generation are necessary and not a reflection of Australia having a growing need for greater coal production (it does not, consumption is trending lower year on year)[1], despite the lower coal-power generation over the 21-22 period[2], energy output has risen by 1% (primarily to service exports).[2]
Currently Australia is no where near the point of having that wonderful luxury problem of solar/renewable inputs tipping the balance to shut down coal production. Stating as such is merely regurgitating coal-industry propaganda. Rather, Australia is adequately planning for such a transition by significantly investing in battery technology. In the meantime current battery technology already allows Australia to burn less coal while simultaneously resolving coal's supply issues.
The reason why you don't see noteworthy subsidies against battery technology is two fold: they are a fraction of the cost and they pay themselves off relatively quickly. Coal doesn't feature either of these benefits, and must be propped up by tax payers. Due to the small cost, Australian states are implementing large battery schemes without federal subsidies, then growing these when they generate a profit.
To use an example: The South Australian "Big Battery" cost $200M, in a single year alone (2019) it saved consumers $116 million.
Alternative style batteries also exist (technically they're batteries too but not the kind you'd imagine). Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia has an attached hydroelectric plant and they'll pump water into the lake during off peak hours and run the turbines at peak demand.
The subsidies for coal generation are necessary and not a reflection of Australia having a growing need for greater coal production (it does not, consumption is trending lower year on year)[1], despite the lower coal-power generation over the 21-22 period[2], energy output has risen by 1% (primarily to service exports).[2]
Currently Australia is no where near the point of having that wonderful luxury problem of solar/renewable inputs tipping the balance to shut down coal production. Stating as such is merely regurgitating coal-industry propaganda. Rather, Australia is adequately planning for such a transition by significantly investing in battery technology. In the meantime current battery technology already allows Australia to burn less coal while simultaneously resolving coal's supply issues.
The reason why you don't see noteworthy subsidies against battery technology is two fold: they are a fraction of the cost and they pay themselves off relatively quickly. Coal doesn't feature either of these benefits, and must be propped up by tax payers. Due to the small cost, Australian states are implementing large battery schemes without federal subsidies, then growing these when they generate a profit.
To use an example: The South Australian "Big Battery" cost $200M, in a single year alone (2019) it saved consumers $116 million.
[1] https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-stat...
[2] https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-stat...